...it is natural to define cinematic thinking as cinematic experience that enters the space of reasons. Of course, this definition raises the question of what exactly cinematic experience is: how it differs from other kinds of experience and how it depends on the conventions, techniques and genres of cinema. I won’t venture answers these questions, but it is worth noting that understanding cinematic thinking in this way makes it a feature of cinematic spectatorship. It is not thinking about films. Nor is it thinking prompted by watching a film. For example, we might think a matter through whilst temporarily disengaged from a film we are viewing. Such an experience would not count as cinematic thinking on the definition in play even if it occurred directly in response to the film because it is not a cinematic experience as such. It is thinking offline as it were. Much more might be said about the nature of cinematic experience in this context, though to do so would take me beyond the scope of this paper. I explore the nature of cinematic thinking in this paper using what I think are uncontroversial examples of cinematic experience: the viewing of various montage sequences from Eisenstein’s October.